Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog

The Berniard Law Firm would like to wish everyone a Happy Holiday.

Regular posting will resume in 2012! Have a happy, and SAFE, holiday season!

Governments traditionally were immune from lawsuit. That has changed. In certain circumstances, governments may be held liable for the damage they cause. A coulee flooded homes in Lake Charles after Hurricane Rita, although the area is protected by a drainage district that operates pumps and pipes to ensure drainage. The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed a jury award against the drainage district in Bordelon v. Gravity Drainage District No. 4 of Ward 3 of Calcasieu Parish, No. 10-1318 (La. Ct. App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11).

Drainage district employees typically stayed in pump houses during hurricanes, but in July 2005, Louisiana state officials determined that no evacuation site in Calcasieu Parish could withstand a category 4 or 5 hurricane. The drainage district has automated pumps run by electricity, but if the power went out, the diesel-fueled backup pumps required human operation. Hurricane Rita was expected to hit land as a category 4 or 5 hurricane. The district decided to allow its employees to evacuate with their families to Opelousas, Ville Platte, and Lafayette. The whole area south of Interstate 10 in Lake Charles was a part of the evacuation.

Rita unexpectedly weakened to category 3 when it made landfall on Friday, September 24, 2005. Electrical power was wiped out across a wide area. The drainage district's electric pumps at Pithon Coulee stopped at 9 p.m. No one was in the pump house to start the diesel pumps. When residents returned the next morning, their homes were fine, but the coulee waters were rising. Drainage district employees had yet to be recalled. The houses began flooding from the rising coulee waters after 3 p.m. Saturday. Early on Sunday, the district workers returned. They turned on the pumps at 8:30 a.m. By noon, the coulee was below flood stage.

Twenty-four homeowners sought damages from the district because it failed to plan a way to automate the diesel pumps and because its decisions during Hurricane Rita resulted in flooding. The district argued it was protected by governmental immunity under Louisiana Revised Statutes. A jury awarded the homeowners $1,570,219.60, although it recognized that the liability of the district's insurer, American Alternative Insurance Corporation, was limited to $1 million. The drainage district and its insurer appealed.

Courts strictly interpret immunity statutes to limit their reach. Two statutes may protect the district. The Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act provides immunity when a government is "engaged in any homeland security and emergency preparedness activities" as a part of complying with the Act. An unpublished court of appeal decision persuasively limits immunity to actions taken during an emergency, but not before. Based on that decision, the jury decided against the drainage district because it failed to have a plan in place before the hurricane's forecasted arrival. The court of appeal agreed. "A failure to plan for an emergency is not an emergency preparedness activity under the statutes conferring immunity for such activities." The district was not immune for not having a plan to keep pumps running when the pump houses were not staffed and power was out.

Louisiana state and local governments also are not liable "based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform their policymaking or discretionary acts when such acts are within the course and scope of their lawful powers and duties." Immunity exists for policymaking or acts for which a choice is acceptable within the government's delegated powers. If the act is "not reasonably related to the legitimate governmental objective for which the policymaking or discretionary power exists," or was done criminally or in some way intentionally, immunity does not apply.

The Louisiana statute is patterned after the Federal Tort Claims Act. A two-part test determines if immunity applies. Did the government employee have discretion, a choice, or did law require the employee to follow a certain course of conduct? If a specific action is mandatory, no immunity applies. If the employee has a choice, was that discretion "grounded in social, economic or political policy"? If not, the government may be liable. Louisiana has adopted the federal test for the state governmental immunity statute.

The court of appeal recognized that planning is an act of discretion, and ensuring employee safety above concerns to protect property "is clearly within the discretion of the district." But, automating the diesel pumps had never been considered, although it would cost only $40,000 and the money was available. By statute, "the drainage district shall make adequate provision for the drainage of all lands and property affected thereby." The district was required to provide adequate drainage of all property. The failure to consider a feasible alternative to ensure compliance with a statutory mandate prevented immunity for the effects of not automating the pumps. The court of appeal affirmed the district court jury verdict.

If you believe you have been harmed by a government, it is hard to know what to do. Government duties come from statutes and regulations, and governments may be protected from lawsuits. But not always. A lawyer will be able to review your claim and determine the government's authority and potential liability.

Continue reading "Calcasieu Parish May Be Liable For Damages Resulting from Failure to Ensure Drainage After Hurricane" »

Those living in low-lying areas and near rivers often seek, and often obtain, flood insurance. Many of the policies granted come from insurance providers that have opted into the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Under this program, property owners are issued flood insurance through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The federal government, in an effort to expand the NFIP, created the Write Your Own program. These policies provide identical coverage as regular NFIP insurance, except they are administered through local insurance companies. These insurance companies increase community awareness of the NFIP in return for expenses related to claims written and processed. FEMA retains all responsibility for claim losses.

These policies, like any other insurance policy, are only active for the policy period. However, once the policy period has expired, FEMA and Write Your Own insurers typically extend a grace period of thirty days. This means that if the policy holder pays a renewal premium within thirty days of the policy's expiration, the renewal will be retroactive, essentially covering the gap between the policy expiration and the payment of the premium. If the policy holder fails to pay the renewal premium before the grace period ends, then the policy terminates at its original expiration date and no grace period claims can be processed under it.

This retroactive policy renewal was the issue in Campo v. Allstate Insurance Company. Here, Campo's flood insurance expired and Allstate sent him notice of the expiration along with the option of retroactive renewal. During this grace period Campo's property was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Due to the excessive number of claims arising from Katrina, FEMA increased NFIP grace periods from thirty days to ninety. Campo contacted Allstate and procured an insurance check to cover his living expenses. No further discussion of policy renewal took place. Campo's ninety day grace period expired without any renewal premium payment. Therefore, when Campo filed his insurance claim it was denied as the policy was not retroactively renewed to cover the damage caused during the grace period. Campo sued Allstate claiming that Allstate had negligently misrepresented the status of his policy.

The only way to succeed on a claim of negligent misrepresentation by an insurance company is to show that the insurance company had a legal duty to supply correct information, that that duty was breached, and that damages resulted from justifiable reliance on that misrepresentation. In most cases, as in Campo's, the third prong of this test is the most difficult to satisfy. The reasoning behind this is simple: policy holders have access to correct information through the policy contract that they possess. Thus, courts may find damages flowed from an unjustified reliance on the misstatement because the policy itself is clear.

Yet, under this test, Campo succeeded on his damages claim in district court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, on the other hand, reversed in favor of Allstate. The reasoning behind this decision is that Campo was fully aware that he was required to pay a premium in order to obtain the retroactive renewal of his policy. In conversations with Allstate, Campo failed to discuss the renewal, and, in addition, the check provided by Allstate during the grace period was not a promise that it would pay Campo's claim. In short, the court viewed Campo as being responsible for knowing the terms of the insurance policy he held. Insurance policy holders have access to the terms of their policy and are therefore in a position to familiarize themselves with relevant provisions.

Since much of Louisiana is prone to flooding, it is important to protect yourself by obtaining flood insurance. However, once a policy is issued, be sure to read through the terms and know the conditions of renewal. When a policy expires, it is the policy holder's responsibility to take action for renewal.

Insurance disputes such as these are complex and best left to an experienced practicing attorney.

Continue reading "U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Clarifies Retroactive Renewal of Flood Insurance" »

Previously on the Insurance Dispute blog, we have reviewed cases where the court analyzied various policy provisions that are intended to limit the scope of the insurer's coverage. One recent example was a clause in a hazard insurance policy that limited the insurer's responsibility for certain economic damages that resulted from a covered loss. Coverage limitations are common features in other types of policies, as well. For instance, a workers compensation insurance policy will typically include provisions that define the type of injuries that fall under the policy and specify the timeframe in which claims must be made. The recent case of Continental Holdings, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. offers an example of a court's analysis of such a provision. Continental Holdings purchased a Workers Compensation/Employers’ Liability Policy from Liberty Mutual on October 1, 1964. The policy's term ended on July 1, 1973. It covered two kinds of work-related injuries: bodily injury "by accident," and bodily injury "by disease." The policy specifically excluded coverage for claims of "bodily injury by disease unless prior to thirty-six months after the end of the policy period written claim is made or suit is brought against the insured for damages because of such injury or death resulting therefrom." In 2009, a group of former employees, certified as a class, sued Continental for hearing loss caused by their long-term exposure to industrial noise while working for the company. In their complaint, the employees alleged that the hearing loss "was painless, and occurred gradually over a long period of time as a result of their continuous long term exposure to hazardous industrial noise at [Continental's] facility.” Continental filed suit against Liberty Mutual seeking indemnity for the employees' claims in the hearing loss suit, arguing that the policy purchased in 1964 covered the workers' hearing loss. Liberty Mutual filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that it was not required to indemnify Continental because noise-induced hearing-loss was not an “accident” and therefore was subject to the 36-month exclusion under the policy. The district court granted Liberty Mutual's motion, and Continental appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on Louisiana law to guide its analysis. At the time the policy was taken out, the Louisiana Worker’s Compensation Act (“LWCA”) was in effect and was incorporated by reference in the policy. The LWCA included the following definition of "accident": "an unexpected or unforeseen event happening suddenly or violently with or without human fault and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury." Continental asserted that the industrial noise the workers were exposed to created an "objective injury" and therefore fell under Louisiana’s then-existing statutory definition of “accident.” It backed up its position with the affidavit of Dr. Robert Dobie, which explained that noise-induced hearing loss can be measured at the moment a noise is heard through an audiogram test. The court noted, however, that "the vast majority of Louisiana cases," including one that held "gradual hearing loss resulting from occupational noise exposure ... cannot meet the definition of an ‘accident’ under any version of the LWCA,” reach[es] a contrary conclusion." The court observed that the Continental workers did not claim that a single event caused their hearing loss. Nor did they experience any symptoms during the period of time that the Liberty Mutual policy was in effect. These facts were contrary to the court's own prior holding that Louisiana's definition of "accident" requires “at least ... some identifiable event or incident within the policy term where the employee can demonstrate a palpable injury.” By way of example, the court recalled a case that involved "a sudden, acute, and identifiable injury during the period of employment." The employee-plaintiff complained of ear pain immediately after exposure to noise, requested and was denied a transfer, and then over the course of a few months experienced nearly total deafness. The court concluded, therefore, that the gradual, noise-induced hearing loss that the Continental workers suffered was "not an 'accident' under the LWCA." Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's finding that the workers' injuries must be classified as "bodily injury by disease," thus triggering the 36-month exclusion.

It is important to note that the Fifth Circuit's decision did not necessarily create a negative outcome for the workers themselves. Indeed, their suit (filed in state court) was merely put on hold until the conclusion of this action, which only served to determine that Liberty Mutual would not be responsible for any damages due the workers if they ultimately prevailed against Continental.

Continue reading "Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Looks to Louisiana State Law to Guide Resoltion of Insurance Coverage Dispute in Workplace Injury Case" »

If a homeowner insures his home and then suffers damage to the structure, the process of making a claim and being paid for the loss can be long and frustrating. Frequently, the insurance company will arrive at its value of the loss and attempt to persuade the homeowner to accept that value, even if it doesn't reflect the homeowner's actual costs of repair. In such a case, the homeowner should check his policy for an "appraisal clause." This provision provides for an alternative method for setting the value of the property damage. An appraisal procedure requires the homeowner to obtain an independent appraiser to survey the damage and assign a value to the loss. Similarly, the insurance company must hire an independent appraiser to perform the same analysis. The two appraisers must petition the court for the appointment of an umpire who will then oversee the negotiation of the settlement based on the two appraisals. Once any two of the parties--the appraisers and/or the umpire--agree as to the value of the loss, the matter is settled.

In Louisiana, like other states, flood insurance policies are underwritten through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NFIP authorizes private insurance companies to issue policies and handle the claim settlement process. Claims are actually paid by the federal government. FEMA requires that all NFIP flood insurance policies include an appraisal clause.

After their was heavily damaged by flood in Hurricane Katrina, William and Cynthia Dwyer filed a claim with their flood insurer, Fidelity National Property and Casualty Insurance Company. The Fidelity policy was issued through the NFIP. The Dwyers disagreed with Fidelity's offer of settlement and took the dispute to the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The court entered judgment for the Dwyers, and on appeal by Fidelity, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and ordered the parties to submit to the appraisal process as outlined in the policy. The Dwyers and Fidelity sought appointment of an umpire, who then submitted to the district court an appraisal that included the amount of actual damage to the Dwyer home as well as a "mark-up for overhead and profit" intended to cover the cost of a general contractor to make the repairs. Fidelity accepted the umpire's figure on damages but objected to the addition of the mark-up because the Dwyers had already sold the house and would not have any role in the repair itself. The Fifth Circuit agreed with Fidelity that "the award of overhead and profit was erroneous" and noted that "Fidelity told the district court that absent the improper award of overhead and profit, it agreed with the umpire’s appraisal." Thus, determining that Fidelity and the umpire were in agreement on the amount of the loss, the court entered judgment ordering Fidelity to pay the Dwyers $1,552.51. This amount represented the umpire’s appraisal amount less the erroneous overhead and profit, the policy deductible, and the amount Fidelity had already paid out to the Dwyers.

The appraisal process seeks to take the potentially emotional settlement of an insurance claim out of the hands of the homeowner and the insurance company and leave the decision to disinterested, expert third parties who have no connection to the outcome. Although the process is generally more cost-effective and expedient than litigation, a homeowner should consult with an experienced attorney to ensure the procedure is properly followed and his rights are protected.

Continue reading "Dispute Over Hurricane Katrina Home Repair Shows Role of Appraisal Process in Insurance Settlements." »

Homeowners across the Louisiana coast were affected by Hurricane Katrina. Many of those affected are still dealing with the stressful experience of rebuilding their homes, communities, and lives. Homeowners insurance is a boon to many when natural disaster strikes. Unfortunately, insurance companies do not always make recovery of benefits easy on the afflicted homeowner. The insurance recovery process can be overwhelming, and may be complicated by the often necessary instigation of litigation. Insurance negotiations can be complicated by differing interpretations of policy provisions. Many different provisions governing recovery are involved in insurance contracts. The interpretation of the language of the contract by the court plays a pivotal role in deciding the amount of damages an insured is entitled to recover.

The recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case French v. Allstate Indemnity Co., illustrates that the recovery of damage benefits from an insurance company is not always a straight forward process. In French , homeowners in Slidell, Louisiana sued their homeowners insurance provider, Allstate Indemnity Co., to recover additional damages resulting from wind damage to their residence caused by Hurricane Katrina. The plaintiffs initially won a judgment in their favor in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana , but they appealed, arguing that they were entitled to additional damages beyond the original award. The insurance company paid less than the full amount of the liability limit under the homeowners insurance policy. The District Court held that, since their repair costs would exceed their policy limit, they were entitled to at least the full limit and awarded them judgment accordingly.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to further damages under two provisions of their policy, an Extended Limits Endorsement provision and an Additional Living Expenses provision. They argued that the lower court erred in denying them recovery under these provisions. The court applied Louisiana case law which dictates that the language of the policy controls and “constitutes the law between the insured and insurer.” When an insurance contract is subject to interpretation "'[w]ords and phrases ... are to be construed using their plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning,’ unless the words have acquired a technical definition." The appellate court reviewed the original award to determine if the lower court erred in their interpretation of these provisions and in denying recovery to the plaintiffs.

The Extended Limits Endorsement allowed for a certain amount of additional damages above and beyond the actual cash value of the insured’s home. The court found that the language of the provision indicated that, in order to recover under this provision, the insured had to show they had repaired or replaced their damaged property. They must also have insured their home to 100% of its value. The plaintiffs did not meet either of these requirements, and the court found the denial of an additional award under this provision was appropriate.

The Additional Living Expenses provision allowed for recovery of damages for "the reasonable increase in living expenses necessary to maintain [a] normal standard of living when a direct physical loss we cover . . . makes your residence premises uninhabitable." The court determined that the plaintiffs had to show additional living expenses they had actually incurred. Since they had not yet begun repairs on their home, and continued to live in the residence, they were properly denied additional recovery under this provision.

Knowledge of the interpretation of insurance contract provisions is important when negotiating an insurance settlement or in litigation for recovery of damages. If you or a loved one has been affected by Hurricane Katrina you need an experienced law firm to help you navigate negotiations with your insurance company and to represent you in court should it be necessary. If you are looking for legal representation, the Berniard Law Firm has experience working with the victims of Hurricane Katrina and their families as well as a variety of storm and general insurance dispute issues.

Continue reading "Insurance Contract Interpretations and the Affect on Recovery of Damages " »

As many Gulf Coast residents unfortunately know, standard homeowner's insurance policies do not include coverage for flooding. In order to assist property owners in Louisiana and other states in protecting themselves against floods from hurricanes, tropical storms, and other severe weather, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968. NFIP offers flood insurance to homeowners, renters, and commercial property owners in communities that participate in the NFIP. In order for a community to be eligible to participate, it must agree to adopt and enforce certain building standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flood damage. According to the NFIP, flood damage is reduced by nearly $1 billion each year as a result of the floodplain management standards implemented by these communities. Also, structures that are built to NFIP standards experience approximately 80 percent less damage annually than those not built to the standards. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the administrative functions of the NFIP, including the claims process. As one Katrina victim recently learned, homeowners who file claims under the NFIP must closely follow the rules contained in their policies.

Violet Collins, a resident of New Orleans, maintained a flood insurance policy through the NFIP to cover her house and its contents. The structure was insured for $225,000 and the contents for $12,500. When the home sustained flood damage during Hurricane Katrina, Collins contacted FEMA to provide notification of the damage. FEMA sent an adjuster to her house to inspect the damage and arrange for payment from FEMA. Collins later submitted additional documentation for damage that the adjuster had overlooked, and FEMA issued her two more checks. Some time later, Collins filed a suit against the NFIP which alleged that the payments on her flood claims were insufficient. The NFIP filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that Collins failed to file a proof of loss as required by the insurance policy and was therefore barred from seeking additional money. The district court granted NFIP's motion, and Collins appealed.

After reaffirming that it must "strictly construe and enforce" the flood policy's requirements, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals asserted that "an insured's failure to provide a complete, sworn proof of loss statement, as required by the flood insurance policy, relieves the federal insurer's obligation to pay what otherwise might be a valid claim." Gowland v. Aetna, 143 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1998). The court noted that, ordinarily, the proof must be submitted within 60 days of the loss, but that FEMA extended the window for Hurricane Katrina claims to one year. Nevertheless, Collins never submitted any proof of loss; the court examined Collins's arguments for why she was not required to file one. Her first argument was that FEMA had waived the requirement altogether, a contention that the court quickly dispensed with by citing well-settled case law on the same question. Second, Collins asserted that the NFIP waived the filing requirement in a letter she received from an insurance adjuster. However, the court concluded this was not possible because "federal regulations provide that no provision of the policy may be altered, varied, or waived without the express written consent of the Federal Insurance Administrator," which was not given. Finally, Collins argued that because she suffers from a debilitating eye disease, she was excused from observing the filing requirement. In response, the unsympathetic court stated that "Collins, however, fails to explain why Louisiana tort law would apply to her claim for flood insurance proceeds or why, if applicable, this would exempt her from our precedent requiring strict compliance with the ... proof-of-loss requirements." Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Collins's suit.

This case serves as a reminder that, even in the aftermath of such massive natural disasters as Hurricane Katrina, flood victims are still expected to follow the specific requirements of their NFIP insurance policies when seeking payment for flood-related losses. Although it may seem cruel to reject a flood victim's appeal for a fair pay-out, the courts have put policyholders on notice that they will not entertain requests to alter the terms of the policies. For this reason, victims of any flood should seek the help of a qualified attorney who can help them navigate the steps required to fully collect on their flood insurance policies.

Continue reading "Court to Katrina Flood Victim: Follow the Rules When Making an Insurance Claim" »

For those Louisiana residents, whether you live in Lake Charles, Shreveport, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Kentwood or any other of the great cities across this state, looking for more information on their possible personal injury claim, check out our blog dedicated to these legal matters:

Louisiana Personal Injury Blog

This blog discusses the legal issues relating to Admiralty/Maritime law, Animal/Dog Bites, Car Accidents, Chemical/Industrial Spills, the intricacies of Expert Testimony, Insurance Disputes, employee rights under the Jones Act, Legal Duty, Civil Lawsuits, Criminal prosecution, Medical Malpractice, Mesothelioma/Asbestos, Motorcycle Injury, Negligence, Offshore Accidents, Product Defects, Chinese Drywall, Strict Liability, Workers' Compensation and Wrongful Death. All of these issues are crucial to citizens rights and residents of Louisiana.

To better understand the complexity of the law, contacting an attorney is crucial. However, to get a better understanding of the general issues, we hope this resource is invaluable. Feel free to browse this legal resource dealing with a variety of harms or damages you may have suffered in order to understand how your issue matches up with the law.

If you would like to speak with an attorney, check out our contact information. We represent Louisiana residents across the state and would be happy to discuss with you how to move forward with your unfortunate circumstances.

The Wall Street Journal, in its editorial section yesterday, commended Judge Duval for finding the Army Corps of Engineers at fault for the flooding of areas of New Orleans. The editorial, entitled 'A win for New Orleans,' celebrates the win as an opportunity for those whose homes flooded to receiving financial settlements to make up for the inability of the Corps to develop and operate adequate water projects.

The lawsuit was brought by seven plaintiffs. Judge Duval ruled against the plaintiffs from New Orleans East but awarded $720,000 to those from St. Bernard and the Lower Ninth.

The judge's decision could lead to thousands of people joining class actions seeking billions of dollars in damages. Lawyers for the plaintiffs are calling on the federal government to offer a universal settlement with the people of New Orleans. The Obama administration and members of Congress should listen. While there are limits on how much people should expect -- the government is strapped for cash, after all -- it's difficult to see what purpose would be served by dragging this case through appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court. Unless the government has a persuasive defense for the negligence decried by Judge Duval, it would be better to settle now.

This is a good sign that the national press is following Gulf Coast issues closely and hopefully people get the results they are looking for in terms of more Corps attention and effort into improving the water systems. Any progress and attention to issues relating to New Orleans and its recovery, though, is positive and hopefully will help lead to those efforts that prevent the devastation of Katrina from occurring again.

Hurricane Ida has weakened to a tropical storm as the Gulf Coast braces for the high waves, rain and wind sure to come in the afternoon and evening. Make sure to check with the NOAA's website for developments as they become available.

Please adjust your plans accordingly and insure the safety of yourselves and your families by not taking any chances.

Hurricane Ida is moving into the Gulf and current tracking has the storm reaching the Gulf Coast late Monday evening. WWL reports Ida is gaining strength over the warm Gulf water while also downgrading into a tropical storm.

For more information on Ida as it becomes available, check out the National Weather Service's National Hurricane Center site dedicated to the storm, located here, or continue to check into this blog.

Hurricane insurance claims continue to be filed in the Gulf Coast, this time in Texas. The Southeast Texas Record reports a wide assortment of filings over the last week of October. Examples include:

Joseph and Julia Crow of Beaumont allege Texas Windstorm Insurance Association denied their claim for roof, water, wind, foundation, structural and contents damages caused to their home after Hurricane Ike struck on Sept. 13, 2008. TWIA denied the claim after its Vice President of Claims Reggie Warren assigned adjusters to investigate.

June Jennings of 1908 North 21st St. in Nederland alleges Texas Windstorm Insurance Association improperly paid her claim for dwelling and contents damages caused to her home after Hurricane Ike struck on Sept. 13, 2008.

These two cases highlight a common thread in insurance disputes: claim denials and low-ball financial compensation offers. Further, many insurance companies hope that homeowners do not know how long they have to file and try to convince them that a low settlement is the only solution. In many cases this is simply not the case and accepting such an offer is disastrous.

The Berniard Law Firm is very familiar with attacking both of these strategies when its clients are taken advantage of by the insurance companies and employs a myriad of experts that will help you receive the justice you deserve.

A quick news piece emerging out of Houston demonstrates that though it has been a quiet hurricane season, the damage caused by previous years in which the Gulf Coast was not so lucky have still not been overcome. In Houston, individuals still living in FEMA trailers in the wake of Hurricane Ike have been notified that they will need to vacate and move on to more permanent housing.

Per Houston's Daily News

Before Hurricane Ike, Sidney Lampman rented the first floor of her sister’s two-story house on West Hunter Drive in Old Bayou Vista. The hurricane flooded the house and, even though Lampman rented the property, rather than owned it, the Federal Emergency Management Agency gave her a mobile home while she looked for a new place to live.

This month, the agency sent Lampman a letter telling her she must move out of the mobile home because there are plenty of apartments and rental houses in the area.

The agency referred her to the federal Disaster Housing Assistance Program, which subsidizes rent for hurricane victims through March.

It is disappointing to see people are still having to rely on this governmental housing and shows the true destruction caused by these disasters. We can only hope this quiet hurricane season continues and the Gulf Coast is given a reprieve from disastrous weather.

While much of the nation has been spared any sort of adverse weather as a result of tropical storms or hurricanes, insuring one's home is not the only way precaution may be taken by people, regardless on where they live. One helpful tip is to avoid any sort of delay or detriment to travel enjoyment by insuring your trip or vacation.

Article writer Michelle Higgins recounts various trips she has taken and the security insurance now provides. She writes

Several years passed before we returned to the Caribbean in hurricane season. In October 2007, my husband and I rented a house on the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico. The three-bedroom home was perched on a hilltop, and its pool offered clear views of the bioluminescent bay and remote beaches. The October rate was a bargain, and other than a few afternoon showers, we escaped any foul weather.

This year, we decided to press our luck again. Why? Because we were getting hurricane insurance.

Basic travel insurance typically covers hurricanes or other unexpected weather events. This can offer peace of mind to travelers going to a storm-prone region. If a hurricane shuts down the airport or wipes out the hotel, for example, you don’t lose the money you spent on the vacation.

But some companies have started going a step further, offering more specific storm-related benefits like hurricane-warning protection. With this type of insurance, travelers don’t have to wait until a hurricane ruins their vacation to get their money back. Rather, hurricane-warning coverage generally allows cancellation of a trip within 24 hours of departure if the destination is under an official hurricane warning from the National Hurricane Center.

The article goes on but the general idea is that a variety of situation-specific provisions exist. By researching before your trip and looking into anything a travel agent or the company you are buying through, or in the event it is a trip just researching the internet or your rental car company, valuable time and money can be preserved. Some companies might let you go on the trip again while others may simply reimburse a portion of your trip. Either way, being an educated traveler can be quite helpful when hurricanes sweep through, if they do. And if they don't, at least knowing you're protected can make travelers less wary about the weather day to day.

In pursuit of keeping readers abreast of storms as they develop, the new storm forming in the Atlantic may lead to this season's next tropical storm with, hopefully, the same results as those previous this year. While it is currently projected to not even reach the coast, it will likely be followed by national meteorologists as it either strengthens or weakens. Storms often can change track so this blog will keep track as the storm progresses.

In the meantime, the AP reports

A new tropical depression has formed in the far eastern Atlantic Ocean and is expected to strengthen into a tropical storm later on Monday or Tuesday, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said.

At 5 p.m. [Monday], the depression was located about 160 miles south of the southernmost Cape Verde islands and its maximum sustained winds were near 35 mph, the center said.

"Strengthening is forecast over the next couple of days ... and the depression is expected to become a tropical storm tonight or Tuesday," it said in a advisory.

It would be named Fred, the sixth named storm of the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season.

More information will be posted as it becomes available.

Per the Examiner, storms may finally reach the Gulf Coast.

A new system taking shape has a fairly high chance of becoming a depression, and possibly tropical storm, on either September 1 or 2, according to the National Hurricane Center. It is located east of Puerto Rico near the Lesser Antilles. The good news is this: the persistent trough over the east will likely steer this tropical cyclone away from the U.S. coast just as we saw with “Bill” and “Danny”. The system has a very low chance of affecting Texas based on expected steering winds.

National Hurricane Center

The Wall Street Journal reports that companies in the Gulf and outside of it are not seeking insurance for catastrophe this hurricane season. Citing "improved technology and increased regulations" as rationale for avoiding the provisions, these companies still stand at some peril as hurricane season escalates. The article notes

Many energy companies are facing the late-blooming Gulf Coast hurricane season without insurance against storm damage to their offshore platforms, pipelines and drilling rigs.

Although the annual storm season has been mild so far, the first hurricane, Bill, brewed up in the Atlantic last weekend, and federal forecasters are predicting three to six hurricanes this year, one or two of which will probably qualify as major.

Consumers are less likely than in earlier years to see spiking prices if hurricanes hit, experts said, because big stockpiles of oil, natural gas and gasoline have built up in the U.S. since the recession began.

But for small and midsize energy companies, a storm's impact could be serious, because they would have to pay for repairs out of their own pockets at a time when revenues have been shrinking because of the global slump in oil and natural-gas prices.

This seems to be similar to the gamble that states are taking for reinsurance, as mentioned in the blog here. All the more, very close attention is going to be paid to developing storms as the season rolls on and the gambles states and companies are taking either pay off or blow up in their faces.

The good news for the United States is, other than a bit of rain and higher waves, Hurricane Bill will likely miss and not make landfall.

This article, from Canada's CBCNews, details the storm's projected path

Hurricane Bill will likely blow into Atlantic Canada's waters on Sunday as a Category 2 storm, bringing 150 kilometre an hour winds and heavy rain, the Canadian Hurricane Centre said Friday afternoon.

But forecasters said it's too early to be precise or issue any warnings.

"At this point, it's still not possible to give the specifics that everybody wants," said Peter Bowyer, the hurricane centre's program manager.

As of Friday morning, Bill was a Category 3 storm about 625 kilometres south of Bermuda with sustained winds of 185 km/h. It was moving north-northwest at about 28 km/h.

Bill is expected to close in on mainland Nova Scotia on Sunday morning, pass close to Cape Breton Island late Sunday afternoon or evening and blow over southeastern Newfoundland late Sunday or early Monday.

Bowyer said it's unclear whether Bill will reach land. The hardest hit areas can expect winds between 150 and 180 km/h and up to 150 millimetres of rain, he said.

While it has downgraded in size and strength, it's still nice to see this Hurricane miss the country almost completely.